Social distancing to be the norm "until there is a vaccine"

[Frompcat]

So this is what Neil Ferguson has said today and seems to be being backed up by government distancing. But what does it actually mean, does anyone know? How can social distancing be maintained if schools open again? Will we be able to visit small groups of family? Or are they literally talking about things continuing as they are for 18 months.

I think people badly need some clarity about this. I don't believe the government don't have any ideas of what their options are.

What would be a more balanced way to approach it @Snog? In terms of practical way forward.

I think we are really only hearing about how best to deal with coronavirus whereas I want to hear about what effect the current restrictions are having on people with cancer and other illnesses, on mental health, domestic violence, vulnerable children, the economy, unemployment etc.

My relative in her 30s had had her potentially life saving cancer op deferred indefinitely and this is happening across the country.

I would like to be hearing different voices and points of view being debated by parliament. It's not just about how to reduce the number of people who die from coronavirus, there is a big picture that we don't seem to be paying any attention to.

Snog yes. I won't go on again about the specific cases in my circle, but it's a huge problem. I wish the papers would take it up instead of tugging their forelocks.

Inkpaperstars what do think I mean?

you have to be careful what you say online or the bloody police will be on the doorstep.

Many people won't survive all this and the economic fallout, not just me.

Snog "It's not just about how to reduce the number of people who die from coronavirus, there is a big picture that we don't seem to be paying any attention to."

also, we don't get figures for deaths from coronavirus. We get the figures of who died from coronavirus. I bet my bottom dollar if dad - who died of cancer and heart failure - had been at death's door in this crisis, they'd have tested him for Covid 19, because apparently the mystery of cancer and heart failure killing you is too much for the medical profession to bear. (They were very puzzled and refused him a hospice place till his last 24 hours).

"We get the figures of who died from coronavirus."

sorry, that should say with, not from!

Snog

I totally agree with you.

Yes, there was an item on the news yesterday about A&E and other illnesses.

Apparently people are not going to A&E when they need to, partly because they are frightened of going into a hospital situation because of the risks of catching Covid19 and partly because they 'don't want to bother' the staff in A&E with something that probably isn't as 'serious or important' as Covid19.

This wasn't talking about things like a cut foot, but strokes and heart attacks.

People can't and shouldn't be made to feel like that. Normal life is still going on and people need treatment for other things.

Treatment and operations for cancer patients has to be resumed at some point, normal life has to go on. We can't all sit on our hand in limbo until, or even if, a vaccine is found.

We have to find a balance.

But people wouldn't be able to access A&E or cancer treatments if we didn't have lockdown. If the virus was just running freely, the health service would be unworkable with so many staff off sick (or dead). Vulnerable cancer patients would be more likely to catch the virus and their outcomes would likely be poor due to compromised immune systems.

IMO, what the government are probably hoping for is to get numbers low enough during this lockdown that they can start to test and isolate along the lines of S.Korea and Germany. That way more workplaces could start back and schools go back, albeit maybe with some changes. Some shops could reopen. If the testing programme was successful, there shouldn't be a need for prolonged further lockdowns. All of this works on the assumption that the government can organise the testing and tracing infrastructure.

The alternative is to relax restrictions as soon as the numbers start to go down, then repeatedly lock down again as numbers begin to rise to levels which would become unmanageable for the health service.

In Europe, nearly 1 in 3 people are at increased risk due to underlying health conditions.

But people wouldn't be able to access A&E or cancer treatments if we didn't have lockdown. If the virus was just running freely, the health service would be unworkable with so many staff off sick (or dead). Vulnerable cancer patients would be more likely to catch the virus and their outcomes would likely be poor due to compromised immune systems.

This. Why do people keep suggesting that the current efforts to reduce transmission are the thing stopping people getting their treatment or other services? It the virus! Removing 'lockdown' wouldn't help.

Don't get me wrong, this lockdown and suspended services could have devastating long term consequences for me, and I am also very worried about the impact on isolated elderly relatives. I think having the debate and making sure the costs of lockdown are constantly kept at the forefront is vital. This needs to be as short term as possible and throughout the needs of different groups must be constantly rebalanced. But I just can't indulge in kicking back against lockdown and the govts as though that is the source of the problem when the problem is the virus. Removing lockdown will only release a tsunami of death and suffering both from covid and from all the causes associated with suspension of health care, isolation and poverty.

@LilacTree1 and @Snog

What immediate changes do you think could help to rebalance things? I think it is really important to discuss.

What I was asking Lilac was why you felt you certainly wouldn't survive the virus but maybe I misunderstood and that wasn't what you meant, sorry.

The best we can hope to do with Corona right now is to save the lives of some of those who would die without hospital treatment. The vast majority of us will not benefit from hospital treatment when we get the virus.

In order to do this we are sacrificing other lives to domestic violence, mental health, cancer and other illnesses and austerity related health and social issues will take their toll on terms of early deaths and blighted lives for years to come.

If we are sacrificing more lives than we are saving then it becomes highly morally questionable to prioritise saving the minority of corona patients who need hospital care and will survive if they receive it.

I don't think we are having this argument properly researched and publicly debated at the moment and we really should be.

18,000 people a day in the UK died of non corona causes pre the outbreak so most deaths are NOT caused by corona but have other causes. Let's not start to wholly ignore all the other deaths and whether we should be doing more to prevent those in our shot sighted rush to focus purely on Corona.

I'm not saying lockdown is wrong, I'm saying we need to carefully consider it's negative effects and this will inform its duration and intensity.

18,000 people a day in the UK died of non corona causes pre the outbreak

Where on earth are you getting that figure from. According to the recently released statistics from the ONS, the 5 year average weekly death rate for this time of year is 10,000.

It had increased to 16,000 the week ending April 3rd this year, up 6000 from the average, despite mild weather which is usually accompanied by a fall in the death rate.

I also don't pretend to have answers, my point is that we aren't having a reasoned and broad debate and taking on different viewpoints. We are very blinkered in our approach and I think history will judge us for this.

For example we need be looking at total daily deaths from all causes right now and compare this to long term averages. People who died WITH corona did not necessarily die FROM corona.

Everything seems very panicky and blinkered and this is not how to make important decisions.

@DippyAvocado sorry should be 1,800 a day

I agree we need to look at the negative effects and not let them be ignored or sidelined when considering how to proceed.

Exponential growth is the key here. Without mitigating measures (and unfortunately lockdown seems to be all we can manage right now) the numbers getting sick and either being off work and/ or requiring hospital treatment would be so great that no one would be getting social services or school support, the economy would be collapsing, health care would be washed away.

It's the sheer numbers...the minority requiring hospital treatment would become hundreds of thousands and possibly more than a million in a frighteningly short space of time.

Chris Whitty keeps emphasising that all cause mortality is the key figure he is looking at.

We also need to compare current deaths to predicted deaths in the absence of lockdown.

If 18k people died a day, that would be 6.6 million a year, ten percent of our population! We wouldn't last very long as a species.

Sorry, didn't see the updated correction :)

Chris Whitty may well be looking at all cause mortality but these figures aren't being discussed or widely shared with people with other areas of expertise.

I wouldn't know about that. I would hope as the chief medical officer he has some power to influence the discussion but I don't know what is being discussed.

At the moment getting a big testing programme underway and getting sufficient PPE both just seem unachievable for the UK, I just don't have confidence that we can sort this stuff out. So any exit plan that predicates on these things seems like magical thinking.

Chris Whitty may well be looking at all cause mortality but these figures aren't being discussed or widely shared with people with other areas of expertise.

How do you know? (genuine question)

Even if “they” just took Snog’s advice and let everyone die who currently needs a ventilator, just diverting resources from that wouldn’t mean they would be in a position yet to reinstate other hospital services as the virus would still be running riot. That is why we have the lockdown.

@MrsFezziwig I have never said or even implied that everyone in need of a ventilator should be left to die, what an ignorant and inflammatory thing for you to say. Neither did I say that anywhere that the current lockdown was not advisable. What is your problem, are you just out to pick random meaningless fights? I understand that lockdown is making people emotional but your attack on me here was just nonsensical.

The situation is highly complex and trying to reduce it down to very simplistic arguments is unhelpful at best and dangerous at worst.